But I think we accept your point that the industry/Home Office has a $345m PR firm advising it on how to make this idea acceptable, while the opposition case is made by vounteers and NGOs.

One of the oddest things about responding to the consultation has been trying to work out why they *want* to do it at all: why would civil servants want to spend 3 billion pounds on a system that they know is going to be incredibly controversial, and genuinely has few demonstrable benefits? how many policemen does 3 billion buy? why would they want to mire themselves in hugely costly almost-doomed to failure IT project? What made them think the public would fall for the ‘Entitlement not id card’ ruse?

Why did the consultation read so gleefully like a Boy’s Own technology playground? Why didn’t it, as the Cabinet Office guidelines state it should, offer a balanced, measured assessment of the pros and cons of the scheme and it’s alternatives (Privacy International have complained to Parliamentary Ombudsman on the handling of the
consultation).

Much evidence has emerged that the proposed policy document was heavily influenced by a consortia of technology companies who were more interested in creating and then securing billions of pounds in
contracts for the delivery of such a system, and little interest in improving law and order, effective policing, or efficient use of tax-payers money.

In effect, a vitally important consultation process was subverted by commercial interests. The business community can, and often does, play
a great role in helping to shape public policy, but after this, we must ask ourselves what safeguards are in place to ensure that they
are consulting for the public good, rather than selling their products, especially as they can pay for lobbying, whereas defending our liberties, and pointing out the flaws often falls to unpaid
citizens with few resources.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2129590,00.html

http://www.schlumbergersema.com/publicsector/entitlement/ecards.htm

http://www.intellectuk.org/publications/position_papers/An_entitlement_card_for_uk_citizens.pdf

…and see how rich the (((***expletive deleted (ed)*** world-leading government relations advisers Fleishman Hillard))) who are advising on “achieving public acceptance” are – isn’t that heartwarming? Who’s paying them to (((DEL – force ID down our throats? INS clarify the issues so we can make a well-informed and wise decision – ed)))) http://www.fleishman.com/overview/growth/HistoryChart_032904.pdf

It’s really important for the IT industry to have a forum, and Intellect has done terrific work on professionalising government IT projects and finding practical ways to end the blame culture between suppliers and government clients.

I suppose I’m nervous when a trade association lobbies for its own interests and incurs significant political risks. Intellect was quiet about RIPA, but initiated a lot on ID cards.

At the time of that NTK piece it had a very capable Australian policy director Tim Conway whose domestic partner was the very capable Australian civil servant Ann Steward, seconded to the Cabinet Office as director of the Central IT Unit (precursor to the Office of e-Envoy, precursor to today’s EGov Unit). So I imagine their policy was in harmony.

But changing the basis of people’s relationship with the state isnt just part of a two-way relationship between government and industry. There’s a Camilla in there as well – people, civil society, the public mood, principled objectors. I don’t believe that the IT trade association is much good at assessing risks of that sort. And I believe that if it leads down a path that undermines people’s trust in e-enabled services it does its members a grave disservice, potentially undoing much of the good work it has done.

Might is right of course, and they may prove to be right short term and get the ID law and medium term and achieve substantial expenditure on ID systems. They may even be proved right eventually that it is feasible, will work, will be accepted and that we’ll all look back and wonder what the fuss was about. I’ll buy Tim a beer either way when I finally visit Oz.

But I suspect Intellect has acted, well, if not “ultra vires” then at least beyond their true and proper sphere of expertise. And that they’ve set their members on a path that hold considerable political risk.

I’m still supportive of their proper mission, anyway, and we’re still members.